September 18, 2012

"U.S. 1st Amendment rights distinguish between speech that is simply offensive and speech deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk," according to Sarah Chayes, former special assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and resident associate at the Carnegie Endowment.

She gets the famous 1st Amendment expert Anthony Lewis to agree with her shocking, blandly stated view. We're told he said: "Based on my understanding of the events... I think this meets the imminence standard." Chayes paraphrases Lewis as saying "words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits," and then directly quotes him: "If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard."

I call on Lewis to repudiate Chayes's use of his words. He can't possibly agree with her opinion, can he? There's a way an interviewer can lead a person along until he gives her the quotes that she wants. I note that Lewis is elderly (85). This appropriation of his reputation is embarrassing for him. But if he actually agrees and wants to put that out there: Make it clear. (And present. And dangerous.)

So let's suppose (just hypothetically) that I publicly announce: If anyone anywhere says something against the idea of cutting corporate income taxes, I will fly into a violent rage and start murdering people and breaking things.

And let's suppose I follow through on my threat at the first possible opportunity.

Is it then forever afterward illegal to speak out against cutting corporate income tax?

Let's not be so hasty, fellow conservatives. Let's consider this new position put forward by the left. I have a lot of pent-up rage.

She gets the famous 1st Amendment expert Anthony Lewis to agree with her shocking, blandly stated view. We're told he said: "Based on my understanding of the events... I think this meets the imminence standard." Chayes paraphrases Lewis as saying "words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits," and then directly quotes him: "If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard."

I would love to put this idiocy to the test. If "words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits," why aren't we shutting down Planned Murderhood's advocacy of abortion? Who knows when the next clinic bomber will be moved to act?

Where's the First Amendment violation? Chayes has the First Amendment right to publish an op-ed that gets the First Amendment wrong. The government has never taken the position that his speech is unprotected.

U.S. 1st Amendment rights distinguish between speech that is simply offensive and speech deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk

Don't these people understand that holding to this position is simply setting the stage for a new era of religious violence here?

If you reward a behavior, you get more of that behavior. Once the screw-loose versions Christians really warm up to that fact, or feel themselves sufficiently disenfranchised (to use the term my poly-sci profs always used to excuse Islamic terrorism), we'll start seeing it here writ large.

"words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits," and then directly quotes him: "If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard."

Cool. So if some idiot decides to burn an American Flag and the conservatives who heretofore have just gritted our teeth and honored the First Amendment decide to beat the ever living shit out of him and all of his friends, family and entire neighborhood.....then burning a flag will meet the standard and will be banned as subject to meeting the limits.

I see. The way to get people to shut up and not exercise their First Amendment, FREEDOM of speech and religion is to be violent.

Who is to administer the free-speech test? The free-speech police, of course. The brown-shirted free-speech police.

Free-speech is not free, pay a fine if you speak out of line, Justice Roberts will call that a free-speech tax, perfectly within the purview of the Fed's taxing authority. Repeat offenders will be incacerated for tax fraud. The uncaught-yet offenders will be jailed for tax evasion when they are caught.

There is no immediacy at all to a video on Youtube. It's "immediacy" is the same as a book sitting on a library shelf.

It's not at all like something shouted in your face. To view the video, you have to find it on the internet and then choose to watch it. And if somehow you accidentally start playing it and don't care for it, you can always shut it off.

However bad the video is, it is obviously poltical speech. Its content is surely not as objectionable as Mein Kampf, yet one can find plenty of copies of Mein Kampf on library shelves.

In any case, protecting political speech- even (or especially) bad political speech- is at the very core of the First Amendment.

' Once the screw-loose versions Christians really warm up to that fact, or feel themselves sufficiently disenfranchised (to use the term my poly-sci profs always used to excuse Islamic terrorism), we'll start seeing it here writ large.'

Not to worry, the screw loose Christians are over-engineered to run on loose screws.

AF said... "Where's the First Amendment violation? Chayes has the First Amendment right to publish an op-ed that gets the First Amendment wrong."

Not what I was asking, at all.

I was wondering if the ACLU has yet commented on the administration asking Google to censor the video, or the FBI hunting down a filmmaker, or even just spoken up to disagree with radical new interpretations of the first amendment.

Note that I'm not saying they haven't issued such a statement --- it was a genuine question.

This reasoning gives opponents of the particular expression at issue the power to make it beyond the scope of the First Amendment. Don't like what someone says? Make it clear that if they say it, you will react violently. Then, if they say it, react violently.

Under this reasoning, the First Amendment is completely eviscerated. It affords no protection whatsoever if the opponents of the speech or expression have the power to except it from protection.

Chayes has the First Amendment right to publish an op-ed that gets the First Amendment wrong."

Well, not so fast. I have spent portions of my career defending free speech and civil liberties. Others have risked their lives in the service defending free speech. If someone prints an op-ed saying that those liberties are limited, I might react violently, and others may riot. According to Ms. Chayes, she is not then protected by the First Amendment.

It's not illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre if indeed there is a fire.

If I want to use Muslims' own documents to depict Mohammed, I will.

If I want to call out their despotic barbarianism, I will.

If I want to engage in performance art as a speaking-truth-to-mob-power campaign, by wrapping the Koran in bacon and burning it, I will.

They are responsible for their own murderous, destructive, oppressive actions.

If this newfangled POV wins the day, I am starting a fatwa movement. Fatwas for everything I disagree with! I'll gin up a mob and start rioting and burning and shut them up. It's their fault. They knew they were provoking my reaction.

To give this right of riot only to Muzzies is to engage in preferential treatment by the government based on religion. It violates disestablishment.

Anthony Lewis: Right, a good example of what we will tolerate as a society. Ultimately, I think it strengthened us because we were able to say these detestable people they can march in Skokie. And even though they did it to be provocative in the most sensitive place, because Skokie had a lot of Holocaust survivors living there in that Chicago suburb, we can stand it. They're not going to bother us. They're not going to make us go down to their level. It takes a good deal of sang froid.

Purely out of curiosity, how do Chayes and Lewis propose to guard against this?

Does the Obama administration propose to establish a board of government censors to screen YouTube videos? What will that cost? Or do they plan to wait until the videos are posted and then decide based on whether or not the Muslims riot? That'd be a lot cheaper, if you don't mind a few dead ambassadors.

And if they set up a board of censors for YouTube will that apply as well to Facebook and other social media?

A woman, provocatively dressed, incites rape. We tut-tut over the easily-excitable gang bangers. After all, they are simple minded, ignorant, loutish, hairy, backwards, alien and threatening. But the woman should not have worn that revealing dress.

So we enforce a dress code.

Burqas, baby, burqas. Burqas all the way down.

In fact, in Ms Althouse's photo she is showing off her uncovered hair. This is provocative in the extreme. If she doesn't put on a hajib, well - no one can vouch for her safety.

I have every right to say whatever I want to say. You have every right to disagree with me. You can ridicule me if I say something stupid. You can shun me. If I slander or libel you, you can have me prosecuted.

I can say hurtful things. You can tell people I say hurtful things.

If I say things that are deemed "inciteful" isn't it ultimately the responsibility of the people that "respond" and not my "incitement?" Incitement, like "hate speech" is in the eye/ear of the beholder/behearer.

I shouldn't have "watch what I say" just because some idiot may misinterpret my meaning.

Thomas a Becket was murdered by followers of Henry II because he said "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Henry's followers assumed he meant to have Thomas a Becket killed.

She gets the famous 1st Amendment expert Anthony Lewis to agree with her shocking, blandly stated view. We're told he said: "Based on my understanding of the events... I think this meets the imminence standard." Chayes paraphrases Lewis as saying "words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits," and then directly quotes him: "If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard."

so the next time an abortion doctor is killed after pro lifers are insulted, I'm assuming pro choices should curb any negative speech towards the pro life movement. Women youare responsible for not only the murder of abortion, but also the murder of those who would speak out against the extremism of the pro life movent. You should be shut up.

It's laughably wrong. Lives and property are only at risk insofar as the "injured" parties are willing to put them at risk. If this were the only criterion for suspending one's first amendment rights, then first amendment rights are automatically hamstrung by someone else's willingness to do violence in response to your speech. It's an utter perversion and they should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm with EDH. There's a world of difference between getting your fellow political travelers to beat, maim, or kill infidels, real or imagined; and provoking a violent response from someone who is somehow offended by your speech, movie, song, cartoon, etc.

Odd logic. A video trailer of an obscure movie seen by less than a dozen people months ago, is uploaded to Youtube in July 2012. This causes violent protests, bug eyed raging military armed violence, coincidently on 11 Sep 2012, two months later?

Believe that? Great. I have this new 419 investment for you. Trust me, its all good.

Free speech is just one component of the freedom that free men have. That we are endowed with by our Creator, whoever he might be.

As Americans, we've already ceded so much of or our freedom, in so many areas, that this next sequential step was inevitable.

The frog is starting to notice that the water is getting kinda warm.

Go to the airport. Watch the people stripping off their belts, taking off their shoes, submitting to searches of all of their belongings, standing with hands up in the nakedometer. Those are not free people. Why would they expect to be free to speak?

Doesn't the First Amendment "imminence standard" apply only to incitement of the like-minded, not provocation of one's opponents?

Yes, that's right. You could theoretically arrest people for inciting an attack on the embassy. It's similar to a conspiracy charge. You have to intend for the violence to occur, it has to be imminent and likely to occur.

For instance, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell free speech didn't protect the defendant because he intended the crime to occur, it was likely and imminent.

So the people who wanted the embassy to be attacked and wanted to kill the ambassador, could be convicted for it, even if all they did was speak.

The guy who made the movie obviously did not intend for violence against embassies by crazy fuckwits. Nor is he responsible for the violence done by crazy fuckwits. This is basic free speech stuff.

Wouldn't one have to go to "fighting words" standard to see a First Amendment limitation based on a provocation?

You can't apply that doctrine to a movie or a book. I actually think that's a bad case and it wouldn't hold up today.

This contention seems pretty inflammatory to me. I hope this Sarah Chaynes person submitted her column for to the Authorities for approval before publication. How else can Americans be certain they haven't abused their freedoms?

I'm sure there's nothing to worry about, but we can't be too careful these days. You're not planning on leaving town, are you Sarah? You still live in that darling bungalow with the distinctive front door? Good. Some deputies may drop by later tonight. Just a few routine questions. Have a good day!

Sure. Let foreigners determine our allowed speech. Then allow them to dress our women. Then allow the to determibe punishments for our crimes. Then allow them to require our daughters be killed for not meeting their standards of conduct between the sexes. Then . . .

The muslims win everytime they go berserk and cow the liberals. The MSM, the Universities, public school teachers, the Dems AND the Republicans (the fact they haven't flooded the internet with the private depravities of the MSM dragoons or even simply Obama's college transcripts is evidence of the fact that they deserve to lose) are enemies of the constitution and liberty.

Oh, I'm sorry, not "liberals"-- "progressives", and after they burn out that term they will need to rebrand themselves yet again to demand the attentions of those with enough common sense to be nauseated by their idiocy and coercions.

Mohammed was a slave owner, a murderer, a thief and a child rapist. All true, must I not say it because I put crosshairs on the West?

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime's attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

Since the intended result of this statement is violence, does that mean it violates the 1st Amendment under Ms. Chayes' standard?

I point out that the guy said he wanted to make America a target for violence, and you think that means I want to kill him?!

Purple Penguin said:"Will no one rid me of this troublesome filmmaker?!?"

See, PP, the thing is: if you try to claim someone is responsible for someone else's actions solely because of what the first person said, then the first person is also responsible for the actions taken by the second person even due to misunderstandings.

So by your own standards, you are now responsible for any harm or damage that comes to the filmmaker.

Don't try to deny/disown it. Progressives have been pushing that the offended's interpretation matters more than the speaker's intent for years, if not decades.

Anthony Lewis? The man who famously thought that the Cambodians would be better off under the Khmer Rouge than under the military dictatorship of Lon Nol? That Anthony Lewis? I see. As for Ms. Chayes, I understand that the people living under the various kakistocracies of that region are frustrated by their powerlessness, but I fail to see why Americans should suspend their own liberties in order to suit them. I also fail to understand why we are arguing constitutional law here. The offended in this case are not American citizens, nor do they live in the United States, so the Constitution in no way applies to them. So why doesn't the Administration simply say, sorry, but we have a constitution in our country that says that there's nothing we can do about your offended sensibilities? Live with it.

Note this, folks. Save these links. Because if Romney wins, these same dipshits will be "champions" of free speech.

The government has never taken the position that his speech is unprotected.

The current government supports this speech. It's the speech they don't like that has issues.

I was wondering if the ACLU has yet commented on the administration asking Google to censor the video, or the FBI hunting down a filmmaker, or even just spoken up to disagree with radical new interpretations of the first amendment.

I'm impressed that Hollywood is siding with the government in this attack on free speech.

Turn out the lights. America is over. Congrats Lefties. You killed a beautiful thing.

I have Leftie friends who used to laugh when I said the right to bear arms is WAY more important than the right to free speech because without guns to back it up, speech is easily suppressed.

For the left (Democrats) it's about finding excuses to suppress free speech hoping they can eventually crush all opposition speech. An open exchange of ideas is the greatest threat to the left wing (Democrat) agenda.

Of course they don't. It starts with phone calls coordinated between Obama's re-election campaign and the current version of the Journolist roster of reporters.

They write some hints, DailyKos, TalkingPointsMemo, FireDogLake, etc repeat it with a healthy amount of distortion and/or decrease in qualifiers, it gets repeated on the MSM broadcasts, then echoed on all the various progressive websites, and voila: It's something a sockpuppet commenter can cite with confidence!

purple penguin wrote:I agree that presuming the intent can be very dangerous. But no presumptions are needed if the person states their intentions, are there?

Even if a person states the intent of what they're trying to achieve by making a statement, does that mean that the hearer has to follow suit? For example, Crack can be a jerk about his views of Mormonism and can even make the point that his intent is to mock the religion. So what? I haven't seen any mormons knocking in his door to kill him. But what if there were? Is he not allowed to make the statement because a mormon might be offended and thus take action?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Jesus, if we are going to suppress speech can we at least have a chance to toss in a few names ourselves? I could go for Toni Morrison being tossed out. oh, and that Maher guy who made the film mocking Muslims. Bill Maher.

I wonder what you suppose were the intentions of the filmmaker behind the film about the imagined assassination of George W. Bush?

Why, to encourage debate! To reflect on how an intellectually deficient president might have his reputation posthumously enhanced or how a neocon cabal might use the event to impose draconian restrictions on liberty.

Purple, I'm not sure what you're saying, so I'm going to ask you directly, rather than guess.

Let's assume that (whatever the real case may be) the dude who made the movie knew with a high degree of probability that the Islamists would riot in response to his video. Let's even assume that he wanted that reaction.

Purple Penguin in this thread clearly intends to offend right-thinking constitutional moderates of all political persuasions. I personally am deeply offended. This is blasphemy of my most cherished beliefs.

Therefore, Penguin's speech should be banned, and in fact criminalized. After a trial, of course, Penguin should be put in jail and/or killed by the State.

There was no imminence whatsoever in the present case, but if that argument was to be made, I would at least expect it was in regard to the translation of the film into Arabic (or certain instances of its distribution), not the original making of the film.

purplepenquin said "But I disagree with the opinion that there is no responsibility at all with the inciter....especially if the intentions were to cause a violent reaction."

This is well stated. It is consistent with all sorts of things that we have today, like political correctness, hitting on Romney for criticizing Obama's foreign policy, hate-crime legislation, and even, I would argue, distinctions between first- and second-degree murder. Also, of course, the leftist notions that people who commit crimes can't help it because they had it bad as kids, and that foreign (though not domestic, usually) terrorists can't help it because America made them do it.

After taking public submissions and hearing from invited participants (mostly senior editors, publishers and academics), the Finkelstein Inquiry (as it became known) reported back to government in February.

Recommended: regulation of all Australian news media

The key recommendation was for the establishment of an "independent" government-funded, cross-platform regulator covering all content defined as news and/or news commentary, to be called the News Media Council (NMC).

...

The threshold for print publications would be 3,000 copies per issue. But websites with a paltry 15,000 "hits" per year (and by hits, they mean total page views, not unique visitors), including social media sites, would fall within the NMC's jurisdiction.

...

The proposed News Media Council...would have the power to frame and compel apologies, corrections, right of reply and retractions, as well as being able (theoretically) to dictate the placement of apologies within a publication.

There would be no right of appeal against an NMC judgment, unless the case was referred to a higher court for the enforcement of adjudications, which could ultimately result in the jailing of journalists, editors and even small-time bloggers for contempt.

Let's assume that (whatever the real case may be) the dude who made the movie knew with a high degree of probability that the Islamists would riot in response to his video. Let's even assume that he wanted that reaction.

Under those circumstances, would you suppress his video?

I'm not in favor of suppressing speech, even in that situation with obvious intent...but if someone's fighting-words result in a fight occurring then is the speaker really clear of any/all responsibility for what happened?

For instance, say there is a guy (lets call him FredInNewJersey) who hates blacks. Hates 'em with a passion. Hates 'em so much he can't even bring himself to utter the name of our current President, and instead constantly refers to him with racist-nicknames. While at Starbucks one day FredInNewJersey starts going off about the "Chocolate Crackhead" and "Little Black Jesus" to a co-worker also standing in line. Several people take offense to those words, and violent mayhem results.

Of course the people who threw the first punches are responsible for what they did, no doubt about that.

And while I wouldn't suppress FredInNewJersey from uttering his racist BS, I beleive he holds some responsibility for what happened. Are you saying his hands are totally clean?

That said, I had heard the comment about the filmmaker's intentions during a radio show but am unable to find anything on the 'net that also says so.

But during my search I learned the guy in the picture has nothing at all to do with the film, and that Obama&Hillary might have been the ones who made the movie.

Needless to say, there is a lot of confusion about this situation...wasn't it just the other day where people where upset about the guy getting "arrested", when it later turned out that he wasn't even handcuffed let alone arrested?

Figuring out "intent" is way too hard. I believe in keeping the laws as simple as possible. Let's cut through all the bullshit and just pass a constitutional amendment that states: "Speech that is presumed harmful to the approval ratings of Barack Obama is not allowed."

On second thought, the amendment process is tedious and time-consuming. I say just issue an executive order and be done with it. We must end this distraction and return our attention to the GOP's War on Women.

The right of free speech is not only a right to speak, it's the right to be heard. That's why I strongly advocate the right of free speech for conservatives, right after they're in work camps, where nobody can hear them!

I kid I kid.

Is there seriously a large group of people that think this film "can't" be made, or seen?

Since Tyrant Mubarak got old and faded away, the same guys who slaughtered Sadat for making peace have been back at war with the JEW and the CHRISTIAN starting with sacrifices of Coptics. Who can blame them, since they feel offended that Jews and Christians exist at all.

So, Penguin, since I am offended by your speech right now, and since your ridiculous, fascist speech is clearly meant to offend me, it's going to your fault when I beat your ass and destroy your property.

The claim is that the movie supposedly meets the Brandenburg test for criminal incitement. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). In an incitement case, the prosecution must prove that the allegedly criminal speech – even if openly advocating violence – was “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and [was] likely to incite or produce such action.” Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441, 448 (1974).

This assumes, of course, that there is a domestic statute that even applies to this speech. Put that aside. Assuming that the Obama DoJ wanted to prosecute, the constitutional test has two components -- intent and probable impact of the defendant's statements on the intended audience. There is some dispute about whether, in assessing the required intent, you look to the speaker (subjective intent) or a 'reasonable person' (objective intent, basically the negligence standard). The 'probable impact' is (at least in theory) an objective test.

"Imminent" impact is, itself, a demanding test -- the Supreme Court has made it clear that the burden of showing the necessary immediacy of danger is a stringent limitation on the prosecution of pure speech. Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), shows just how demanding that test is. During a Vietnam war protest, Hess proclaimed to a crowd of protesters: “We’ll take the fucking street later.” Applying the Brandenburg standard, the Indiana courts concluded that Hess “intended to incite further lawless action on the part of the crowd in the vicinity … and was likely to produce” that result. Hess v. State, 297 N.E.2d 413, 415 (Ind. 1973), rev’d, 414 U.S. 105 (1973). The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that, at most, Hess’s words could be construed as advocating “illegal action at some indefinite future time.” 414 U.S. at 108. That was not enough, said the Court, to satisfy Brandenburg’s requirement of a present likelihood of “imminent lawless action.”

The classic incitement case involves a speaker addressing an audience, like Marcus Antonius at Caesar’s funeral using an artful speech to direct the crowd’s anger against Brutus and his co-conspirators.

So how could that paradigm fit this youtube video? Beats me. The claim that the First Amendment would not preclude any prosecution sounds to me like complete nonsense.

But I disagree with the opinion that there is no responsibility at all with the inciter....especially if the intentions were to cause a violent reaction.

I think it is safe to assume any critique or parody of Islam or Mohammed will result in a violent reaction by Muslims. Therefore by your logic, if I upload a cartoon of The Prophet to YouTube and those excitable lads with crazy eyes and unkept beards go on a murder spree, I would be responsible.

For instance, say there is a guy (lets call him FredInNewJersey) who hates blacks. Hates 'em with a passion. Hates 'em so much he can't even bring himself to utter the name of our current President, and instead constantly refers to him with racist-nicknames. While at Starbucks one day FredInNewJersey starts going off about the "Chocolate Crackhead" and "Little Black Jesus" to a co-worker also standing in line. Several people take offense to those words, and violent mayhem results.

While you're indulging in fantasy and outright lies, PP, feel free to use my Althouse handle. Consider it storyteller's privilege.

Is there seriously a large group of people that think this film "can't" be made, or seen?

Hmm. Don't know. Why don't we ask Bill and Hillary after a showing of The Path to 9-11?

God bless Garage. An asshole, but an asshole I don't mind and someone I know is ultimately a decent, freedom-loving asshole. Mostly.

Either you're on some industrial-strength hallucinogens, or you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

The "if" is pretty enormous in "if ... violence was intended" in this context.

(Bracketing the question of Lewis being quoted accurately-and-in-context or not; in any case the op-ed writer wishes us to accept that view.)

I'd love to see someone actually demonstrate that the movie trailer was "intended" to cause riots and attacks and murder*.

For that matter, the normal standard for "incitement" is that one is trying to convince party X to attack party Y, not to make party X so mad at you they attack party Z that they foolishly use as a proxy for you.

That's more like the "fighting words" exception, and that requires a "reasonable man" standard, doesn't it? That way people with lunatic hair-triggers don't get to control everything.

Oh, wait...

(* Or is the standard going to be "would probably cause them because the offended party riots at any pretext at all, and we do mean pretext" ?

If so, that standard for "free speech" is worse than a heckler's veto, since it explicitly rewards violent reaction.

Become famous for rioting any time you're "offended", and it will become illegal to offend you?

Althouse says this, knowing she's speaking to a mob of right-wing hillbillies. And we're getting angry and riled up. We're jumping and down, mad as hell. And she's inciting us with her rhetoric. Not to mention her photographs!

And Saint Croix gets so mad, he says: "Mohammad can suck it."

Now, we all know this is illegal. Saint Croix cannot tell the prophet Mohammad to suck it. That's a crime. That's a given.

But my question, to the liberal intelligentsia, is whether the brown shirts should show up at Althouse's office and ask her to come downtown for a few questions?

Did Althouse intend to rile up her hillbilly mob?

Let's ask Saint Croix. "Oh hell yes, she riled me up. I didn't even know about that damn Los Angeles Times article. She got me all excited. She did it. She played me like a Zionest puppet-master."

So the jury acquits Saint Croix of his speech crime. "You know I like those Sufis. They're nice. I don't say shit about Sufis. I was thinking of those Wahhabi assholes when I told Mohammad to suck it. And you know that's just a metaphor, right? Anyway, I was going on Althouse, looking for a boob discussion, and she got me all angry and worked up. Bunch of Wahhabi assholes. But I was in a good mood until she got me all excited. Incitement, that's what it was. And her, a law professor!"

Penguin, a treatise could be written on the awfulness of your position. This is not the place for such a thing.

Briefly, implicit in your stance is that the Arabs who are insulted are a bunch of wogs who can't be expected to be reasonable. Because you are implying that I am wrongly unreasonable when I want to beat your ass and destroy your property because of what you have written.

Further, your position that the intent of speech matters shows a gross misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is. It protects political speech, which by definition is intended to offend someone, because politics is by definition going to leave people offended at each and every step of any political process.

Seems to me there is a difference between standing before a group of protesters, inciting a riot, vs. making statements/movies which anger people, who then riot. Otherwise you give veto power to anyone who disagrees with an idea or expression enough to riot. Under those circumstances, we're not even 10% free.

Clint said: "It's almost enough to make me go out and found the First Amendment Front. Our mission statement is to riot every time a talking head supports censorship."

Good idea because once you establish the pattern then any criticism by the lefties (which in the past has led to riot and harm) will be incitement because the they should have known they were driving people over the edge into violence with their offensive words.

There is, as a practical matter, the righteous indignation exception to hate speech. For example, a Palestinian can say the most hateful things imaginable about Jews and it is excused as the exclamation of one in pain. It's not like they're Europeans.... The Rev. Wright was not making a hateful sermon but working in the prophetic tradition. In the way that Palestinians are allowed far more leeway in their criticism of Jews than, say, Germans, blacks are allowed far more latitude in their criticism of whites. It's the righteous indignation exception to hate speech.....Why should not Egyptia Copts be allowed their indignation? They were in Egypt before the Moslems. They are a beleagured minority who are openly discriminated against. Why don't other minorities extend their empathy to this group?

Purple - I don't think your discussion of the starbucks guy is analagous, for a lot of reasons, but your idea of "fighting words" is too expansive. fighting words means saying something that shows an immediate and serious threat. Youtube movies defaming one religion or another don't suffice, or at least should not.

But assuming that the video "caused" the rioting, what sort of responsibility are you talking about? Just moral responsibility, or legal responsibility? For example, should the families of those injured be able to sue the video guy?

If a guy picks up a rock and throws it at someone else injuring or even killing that that other person, it it the fault of the rock? Or whoever left the rock there? After all, if the rock wasn't there it wouldn't have been thrown and the injured (or dead) person wouldn't be injured (or dead)...

Sheridan said...Every country has a Roland Freisler, ready to emerge and manifest the will of the controlling class. Who will serve as our judge of permissible speech?

The mention of Roland Freisler reminds me of the valiant battle waged against him and his ilk by Helmuth James von Moltke, a German attorney active in Nazi resistance. Von Moltke lost his life after being tried by Freisler, but he left behind some chilling courtroom drama concerning what we'd call the 1st Amendment.

Purple, this is ample evidence to support my safe assumption. The Mohammed cartoon, the teddy bear named Mohammed, the alleged Koran flushing incident, the draw Mohammed Day, the burnt Korans and now this YouTube video all resulted in murderous rampages by Muslims.

So, by your logic if I would be held responsible for inciting this violence, then you agree that Muslims are incapable of accepting crticism and/or humor of their religion and unlike any other religion should be held with the deepest respect.

Chayes: Andover, Harvard (Radcliffe) 1984, Peace Corps, Harvard grad school in Islamic history. She won top prizes for history at Radcliffe as an undergrad. Father was a Kennedy official with a big role as legal advisor in Bay of Pigs. He apparently came up with the distinction between the "Quarantine" and the "Blockade." Later a big time professor at Harvard in international law and advisor to democratic presidential candidates. Mother was also a prominent lawyer and legal scholar. Everyone running in high class academic and political circles.

Chaynes career is more interesting than the normal commentator and she has taken considerably more risk than the average armchair commenter. Lived in Paris. Covered Balkans and Iraq on the ground for NPR. Also covered Afganistan and in 2002, believing Afganistan to be in a "post war" condition, started a business in Afganistan making womens' cosmetics for export. She had hoped to turn farmers away from the opium culture. (Pipe dream alert!) Parlayed this into blogging, being interviewed and some writing. Eventually ended up as an "adviser" to Admiral Millen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs. (Did Millen really find her useful or did he just have to take her as a result of her contacts and clout.)

Her grandparents were lawyers too--a long history here.

Two ways to look at this:

(1) An interesting lefty not rabidly or reflexively anti military who has made an error in judgment.(2) A mid-later career lady who had reached a dead end and is looking to light a fire, show some lefty loyalty and get some publicity.

Not surprising she had access to Lewis. Almost certainly he is an old family friend.

She caused a bit of a stir exposing government and agency corruption in Afghanistan. My guess is that her stories probably put some Afgans in at least arguable danger. Should her own articles have been censored?

I don't think that the examples you listed support your original ("any critique or parody of Islam or Mohammed will result in a violent reaction by Muslims") claim, and the links that were provided by others also fail to support your statement.

Sounds like your assertion is anecdotal. Weren't you saying something the other day about evidence of that sort?

I also can't help but notice that there have been many comments in this very blog (including some by you) that are critical of Islam, yet they haven't resulted in a violent reaction from anyone, Muslims or otherwise.

Charlie Manson engaged in cult like brainwashing over a long period of time... There is no evidence the filmmaker knew let alone had contact with the overblown rage murdering mob.

"Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."

Not quite. I beleive that the people doing the murdering are responsible for what they did while you are responsible for your role in purosefully inciting them

When you give up the right to criticize a religion you must accept its divine revelation, and as the final word, and those who do not accept this revelation are fit to be treated as cattle,infidels, and slaves. You must also accept an illiterate businessman was spoken to by an archangel and received this divine revelation. I say fuck that noise, and really, Islam can get fucked. So sick of these fucking people. It's poison. It poisons childrens minds, trains people into violence, and makes a culture of death and murder around the globe.

(2) We really cannot censor social media in this country. According to Google's statistics, 72 hours of video is uploaded every minute! Those of you who support Chayes need to explain precisely how you plan to police that. Certainly not with humans in the loop.